Sugar From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Regarding Amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 58136-58137 [2019-23770]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58136
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Notices
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to an
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a violation subject to sanction.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as an initial
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in
Commerce’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of doubled antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.210(c).
Dated: October 18, 2019.
Carole Showers,
Executive Director, Office of Policy, Policy
& Negotiations, Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of the investigation covers
aluminum wire and cable, which is defined
as an assembly of one or more electrical
conductors made from 8000 Series
Aluminum Alloys (defined in accordance
with ASTM B800), Aluminum Alloy 1350
(defined in accordance with ASTM B230/
B230M or B609/B609M), and/or Aluminum
Alloy 6201 (defined in accordance with
ASTM B398/B398M), provided that: (1) At
least one of the electrical conductors is
insulated; (2) each insulated electrical
conductor has a voltage rating greater than 80
volts and not exceeding 1,000 volts; and (3)
at least one electrical conductor is stranded
and has a size not less than 16.5 thousand
circular mil (kcmil) and not greater than
1,000 kcmil. The assembly may: (1) Include
a grounding or neutral conductor; (2) be clad
with aluminum, steel, or other base metal; or
(3) include a steel support center wire, one
or more connectors, a tape shield, a jacket or
other covering, and/or filler materials.
Most aluminum wire and cable products
conform to National Electrical Code (NEC)
types THHN, THWN, THWN–2, XHHW–2,
USE, USE–2, RHH, RHW, or RHW–2, and
also conform to Underwriters Laboratories
(UL) standards UL–44, UL–83, UL–758, UL–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 250001
854, UL–1063, UL–1277, UL–1569, UL–1581,
or UL–4703, but such conformity is not
required for the merchandise to be included
within the scope.
The scope of the investigation specifically
excludes aluminum wire and cable products
in lengths less than six feet, whether or not
included in equipment already assembled at
the time of importation.
The merchandise covered by the
investigation is currently classifiable under
subheading 8544.49.9000 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Products subject to the scope may
also enter under HTSUS subheading
8544.42.9090. The HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written description of the
scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Appendix II
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Period of Investigation
IV. Scope of the Investigation
V. Changes Since the Preliminary
Determination
VI. Adjustments to Cash Deposit Rates for
Export Subsidies
VII. Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the
Act
VIII. China-Wide Entity and Use of Facts
Otherwise Available and Adverse
Inferences
IX. Discussion of the Issues
Comment 1: Selection of the AFA Rate
Comment 2: Application of Total AFA to
Huatong
Comment 3: Huatong’s Eligibility for a
Separate Rate
Comment 4: Application of Total AFA to
Silin
Comment 5: Offset of Countervailable
Benefits for Aluminum Rod
X. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2019–23612 Filed 10–29–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–201–846]
Sugar From Mexico: Notice of Court
Decision Regarding Amendment to the
Agreement Suspending the
Countervailing Duty Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 18, 2019, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) issued a final judgment in
CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, Ct. No.
17–00214, Slip Op. 19–131 (CIT October
18, 2019) (CSC Sugar II). Commerce is
notifying the public of the CIT’s ruling
that Commerce’s 2017 amendment to
the Agreement Suspending the
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Countervailing Duty Investigation on
Sugar from Mexico (CVD Agreement)
must be vacated. Commerce intends to
take action to implement the CIT ruling
by November 18, 2019.
DATES: November 29, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sally C. Gannon, Bilateral Agreements
Unit, Office of Policy and Negotiations,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0162.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 19, 2014, Commerce
and the Government of Mexico (GOM)
signed the CVD Agreement.1 Between
June 2016 and June 2017, Commerce
and the GOM held consultations to
address concerns raised by the domestic
industry and to ensure that the CVD
Agreement met the statutory
requirements for a suspension
agreement, e.g., that suspension of the
investigation was in the public interest,
including the availability of supplies of
sugar in the U.S. market, and that
effective monitoring was practicable.
The consultations resulted in Commerce
and the GOM signing an amendment to
the CVD Agreement on June 30, 2017,
which was subsequently published in
the Federal Register.2
CSC Sugar LLC (CSC Sugar)
challenged Commerce’s determination
to amend the CVD Agreement by
contending that Commerce did not meet
its obligation to file a complete
administrative record.3 Specifically,
CSC Sugar argued that Commerce failed
to memorialize and include in the
record ex parte communications
between Commerce officials and
interested parties (including the
domestic sugar industry and
representatives of Mexico) as required
by section 777(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).4
The CIT agreed with CSC Sugar and
ordered Commerce to supplement the
administrative record with any ex parte
communications regarding the CVD
Amendment.5 CSC Sugar subsequently
filed a motion for judgment on the
agency record arguing that Commerce’s
1 See Sugar From Mexico: Suspension of
Countervailing Investigation, 79 FR 78044
(December 29, 2014).
2 See Sugar From Mexico: Amendment to the
Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty
Investigation, 82 FR 31942 (July 11, 2017) (CVD
Amendment).
3 See CSC Sugar II at 4.
4 Id.
5 Id. (citing CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 317
F. Supp. 3d 1322, 1326 (CIT 2018)).
E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM
30OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Notices
failure, during the consultations period,
to maintain contemporaneous ex parte
communication memoranda, in
accordance with section 777(a)(3) of the
Act, could not be adequately remedied
by Commerce’s delayed and incomplete
supplementation of the record.6
The CIT found that Commerce’s
failure to follow the recordkeeping
requirements of Section 777 of the Act
cannot be described as ‘‘harmless.’’ 7
The CIT found that this recordkeeping
failure substantially prejudiced CSC
Sugar.8 On that basis, the CIT stated that
the CVD Amendment must be vacated.9
The CVD Amendment remains in
force until Commerce takes action to
implement the CIT’s ruling. The CIT’s
rules establish an automatic 30-day stay
of proceedings to enforce a judgment.10
Accordingly, Commerce intends to
implement the CIT’s ruling by
November 18, 2019.11
Dated: October 25, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–23770 Filed 10–29–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–096]
Aluminum Wire and Cable From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) determines that
countervailable subsidies are being
provided to producers and exporters of
aluminum wire and cable from the
People’s Republic of China (China).
DATES: Applicable October 30, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caitlin Monks or Nancy Decker, AD/
CVD Operations, Office VII,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
AGENCY:
6 See
CSC Sugar II at 4.
at 11–12.
8 Id. at 12.
9 Id.
10 See CIT Rule 62(a) (‘‘Except as stated in this
rule or as otherwise ordered by the court, no
execution may issue on a judgment, nor may
proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 30 days
have passed after its entry.’’).
11 See CIT Rule 6(a)(1). In this case, the 30th day
after October 18 is Sunday, November 17.
7 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 250001
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–2670 or
202–482–0196, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The petitioners in this investigation
are Encore Wire Corporation (Encore)
and Southwire Company, LLC
(Southwire) (the petitioners). In
addition to the Government of China
(GOC), the mandatory respondents in
this investigation are Shanghai Silin
Special Equipment Co., Ltd. (Silin),
Changfeng Wire & Cable Co., Ltd.
(Changfeng), and Shanghai Yang Pu Qu
Gong (Qu Gong). Qu Gong did not
respond to our requests for information.
On April 8, 2019, Commerce
published in the Federal Register the
Preliminary Determination of this
investigation.1 On September 11, 2019,
Commerce issued its Post-Preliminary
Analysis.2
A summary of events that occurred
since Commerce published the
Preliminary Determination, as well as a
full discussion of comments from
interested parties for this final
determination, is provided in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum.3 The Issues
and Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file electronically
via Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(ACCESS). ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
access.trade.gov and is available to all
parties in the Central Records Unit,
Room B8024 of the main Commerce
building. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
at https://enforcement.trade.gov. The
signed and electronic versions of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are aluminum wire and
cable. For a complete description of the
1 See Aluminum Wire and Cable from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment
of Final Determination with Final Antidumping
Duty Determination, 84 FR 13886 (April 8, 2019)
(Preliminary Determination), and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).
2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Post-Preliminary Analysis
of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Aluminum
Wire and Cable from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated September 11, 2019.
3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Determination in the
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Aluminum
Wire and Cable from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby
adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision
Memorandum).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58137
scope of this investigation, see
Appendix I.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is January
1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
Use of Adverse Facts Available
In making this final determination,
Commerce is relying on facts otherwise
available, including adverse facts
available (AFA), pursuant to section
776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). For a full discussion
of our application of AFA, see the
Preliminary Determination and the
Issues and Decision Memorandum.4
Analysis of Comments Received
In the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, we address all issues
raised in parties’ case and rebuttal
briefs. A list of the issues that parties
raised, and to which we responded, is
attached to this notice as Appendix II.
Changes Since the Preliminary
Determination
Based on our review and analysis of
the comments received from parties,
minor corrections presented at
verification, and our verification
findings, we made changes to
Changfeng’s subsidy rate calculation,
and we have now assigned Silin a rate
based entirely on AFA. For a discussion
of these changes, see the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
Final Determination
In accordance with section
705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), we
calculated an individual estimated
subsidy rate for Changfeng and assigned
to Qu Gong and Silin rates based
entirely on AFA pursuant to section 776
of the Act.
Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act
provides that in the final determination,
Commerce shall determine an estimated
all-others rate for companies not
individually examined. This rate shall
be an amount equal to the weighted
average of the estimated subsidy rates
established for those companies
individually examined, excluding any
zero and de minimis rates and any rates
based entirely under section 776 of the
Act. Changfeng is the only respondent
for which we calculated an estimated
weighted-average subsidy rate that is
not zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on facts otherwise available. Therefore,
4 See Preliminary Determination PDM at ‘‘Use of
Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences;’’
see also Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Use
of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse
Inferences.’’
E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM
30OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58136-58137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23770]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-201-846]
Sugar From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Regarding Amendment
to the Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 18, 2019, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) issued a final judgment in CSC Sugar LLC v. United States,
Ct. No. 17-00214, Slip Op. 19-131 (CIT October 18, 2019) (CSC Sugar
II). Commerce is notifying the public of the CIT's ruling that
Commerce's 2017 amendment to the Agreement Suspending the
Countervailing Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico (CVD Agreement)
must be vacated. Commerce intends to take action to implement the CIT
ruling by November 18, 2019.
DATES: November 29, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon, Bilateral Agreements
Unit, Office of Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0162.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 19, 2014, Commerce and the Government of Mexico (GOM)
signed the CVD Agreement.\1\ Between June 2016 and June 2017, Commerce
and the GOM held consultations to address concerns raised by the
domestic industry and to ensure that the CVD Agreement met the
statutory requirements for a suspension agreement, e.g., that
suspension of the investigation was in the public interest, including
the availability of supplies of sugar in the U.S. market, and that
effective monitoring was practicable. The consultations resulted in
Commerce and the GOM signing an amendment to the CVD Agreement on June
30, 2017, which was subsequently published in the Federal Register.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Sugar From Mexico: Suspension of Countervailing
Investigation, 79 FR 78044 (December 29, 2014).
\2\ See Sugar From Mexico: Amendment to the Agreement Suspending
the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 31942 (July 11, 2017)
(CVD Amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSC Sugar LLC (CSC Sugar) challenged Commerce's determination to
amend the CVD Agreement by contending that Commerce did not meet its
obligation to file a complete administrative record.\3\ Specifically,
CSC Sugar argued that Commerce failed to memorialize and include in the
record ex parte communications between Commerce officials and
interested parties (including the domestic sugar industry and
representatives of Mexico) as required by section 777(a)(3) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See CSC Sugar II at 4.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT agreed with CSC Sugar and ordered Commerce to supplement
the administrative record with any ex parte communications regarding
the CVD Amendment.\5\ CSC Sugar subsequently filed a motion for
judgment on the agency record arguing that Commerce's
[[Page 58137]]
failure, during the consultations period, to maintain contemporaneous
ex parte communication memoranda, in accordance with section 777(a)(3)
of the Act, could not be adequately remedied by Commerce's delayed and
incomplete supplementation of the record.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id. (citing CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 317 F. Supp. 3d
1322, 1326 (CIT 2018)).
\6\ See CSC Sugar II at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT found that Commerce's failure to follow the recordkeeping
requirements of Section 777 of the Act cannot be described as
``harmless.'' \7\ The CIT found that this recordkeeping failure
substantially prejudiced CSC Sugar.\8\ On that basis, the CIT stated
that the CVD Amendment must be vacated.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. at 11-12.
\8\ Id. at 12.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CVD Amendment remains in force until Commerce takes action to
implement the CIT's ruling. The CIT's rules establish an automatic 30-
day stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment.\10\ Accordingly,
Commerce intends to implement the CIT's ruling by November 18,
2019.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See CIT Rule 62(a) (``Except as stated in this rule or as
otherwise ordered by the court, no execution may issue on a
judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 30 days
have passed after its entry.'').
\11\ See CIT Rule 6(a)(1). In this case, the 30th day after
October 18 is Sunday, November 17.
Dated: October 25, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-23770 Filed 10-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
